IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

265

1. CRR No. 388 of 2026 (O&M)

Samdeep @ Sam and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent

2. CRR No. 478 of 2026 (O&M)

Samdeep @ Sam and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Date of decision : 25.05.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Utkrant Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Durgesh Garg, AAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This common order shall dispose of abovementioned two revision petitions as both petitions arise out of the same FIR and involve interconnected questions regarding extension of time for completion of investigation under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act and the consequential claim of default bail.

2. In petition bearing CRR No. 388 of 2026, the petitioners seek setting aside of order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur, in case arising out of FIR No. 56 dated 10.07.2025, registered under Sections 21(C), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 25 and 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Behrampur, whereby an application moved by the prosecution under Section 36-A of the NDPS Act for extension of time to complete investigation was allowed.

3. In petition bearing CRR No. 478 of 2026, challenge has been laid by the petitioners to the order dated 07.02.2026, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur in the aforementioned case, whereby an application moved by the petitioners under Section 187(3) BNSS, 2023 (which corresponds to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.) seeking benefit of default bail on account of non-

presentation of challan within the prescribed period was dismissed.

4. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of these petitions are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that ₹

258 grams of heroin, cash amounting to 2,200/- and one .32 bore revolver were recovered from the petitioners. Since the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity, the statutory period available to complete investigation and present final report was 180 days. Before expiry of the said period, the prosecution moved an application dated 03.01.2026 seeking extension of time primarily on the ground that the FSL report had not been received. The application was supported by a report of the Public Prosecutor. Learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur allowed the said application on 05.01.2026 and granted extension of time for completion of investigation. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have preferred petition bearing CRR No. 388 of 2026. Thereafter, since challan had still not been presented, the petitioners moved an application under Section 187 BNSS claiming default bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2026 on the premise that time to file challan already stood extended, which led the petitioner to file petition bearing CRR No. 478 of 2026

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 05.01.2026 granting extension of time is legally unsustainable and has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner without satisfying the mandatory requirements of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. It is argued that mere pendency or non-receipt of the FSL report cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for extension of investigation beyond the statutory period. It is further contended that the application moved by the Investigating Agency did not disclose the progress of investigation, the steps undertaken during the investigation period or any specific reasons necessitating continued detention of the petitioners. Even the report submitted by the Public Prosecutor did not independently apply mind to the material and merely forwarded the request of the police. Reliance has been placed upon Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 942 and Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. Sta